Republikan warning about homosexuals

By Monday March 10, 2008

She’s complaining, now, that she never expected to have her little talk heard outside of Oklahoma.



57 Comments
  1. steve666 says:
    3/10/2008 at 11:40 am

    I agree with this woman. What do I really wonder about her? Well I wonder if she “trims” downstairs!

    Reply
  2. Foo says:
    3/10/2008 at 11:48 am

    ‘More dangerous than terrorism or Islam’

    Because, of course, people who fuck members of the same sex are far, far more dangerous than people who:

    * Fly planes into buildings
    * Saw the heads off Jewish reporters
    * Blow themselves up in crowded markets
    * Riot and kill over cartoons & movies
    * Abuse & kill women for showing their faces in public, being with the wrong man, being ‘sassy’, etc.
    * Publicly execute homosexuals via strangulation hanging.
    * Openly scream ‘Death to the US!’

    Yep, I’m sure the local al’Asqua-Queer brigade will be rampaging through the streets of Oklahoma beating Christians to death with giant purple dildos and screaming “Death to the Straights!” any minute now…

    Reply
  3. raster says:
    3/10/2008 at 11:48 am

    wf

    Reply
  4. SomeTechGuy says:
    3/10/2008 at 12:11 pm

    Balbas said, on March 10th, 2008 at 9:43 am:
    “No one is teaching facts anymore (like evolution), they’re teaching indoctrination (like creation science).”

    Pssst. Macro-evolution is just a theory as well.

    Reply
  5. Dallas says:
    3/10/2008 at 12:12 pm

    Just listen to that pathetic bitch. It is amazing to me that people in this day and age still vote these people to powerful elected offices.

    Ask me why I hate the Republican party and everything associated with it. There’s my answer.

    Reply
  6. BW says:
    3/10/2008 at 12:21 pm

    With all of the comments posted here, makes me wonder who the haters are?

    Reply
  7. HMeyers says:
    3/10/2008 at 12:44 pm

    This lady has some valid concerns and is exercising her right to free speech.

    It sounds like she has legitimate concerns about some of the consequences of gay culture.

    Why must someone be labelled a “hater” if they have concerns?

    The reason this is done is that when you label someone a “hater” or a religious zealot, you are saying that their concerns or what they think are invalid and is defacto censorship.

    Certain types of gay lifestyles do greatly facilitate the spread of disease, some gay behaviors are very questionable (the problem with sex in bathrooms/bathhouses in Florida).

    Critique the argument, not the person.

    Reply
  8. moss says:
    3/10/2008 at 12:45 pm

    #17 makes a useful point – and why I discount out of hand the twerps whose gonads are still sewn directly to the RNC.

    My extended family is overwhelmingly conservative, mostly Republican for decades. They’re so turned off by the corruption, cronyism and imperial crusades that the majority are now registered independent or Democrat [to help choose someone to replace the toads in power].

    That goes all the way to one peer who’s older than me – who was an active Republican for 50 years. It was like hemorrhoid surgery for him to register as Democrat; but, as he said – there is no Republican Party anymore. There is no party for traditional American conservatives anymore. At least, he can participate in removing the current crop who abuse what used to be a respectable name.

    Reply
  9. Dallas says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:03 pm

    #27. Excuse me, she is not just “a lady with valid concerns”, she’s a fucking elected official – a state representative.

    You are part of the problem. Fortunately, you are increasingly irrelevant.

    Reply
  10. HMeyers says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:12 pm

    @29

    Wrong, hate mongers like yourself unable to articulate a balanced and thoughtful argument are increasingly irrevelant.

    Welcome to the age of enlightenment.

    Prepare for a world where moderates like myself who don’t buy into either of the extremist positions sold by the mainstream media as “left” or “right”.

    Sorry, chief. My opinion stands. Deal wit it!

    Reply
  11. Mister Feline Feces says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:13 pm

    This is what a $5,500 escort looks like:

    http://tinyurl.com/24q8xf

    Reply
  12. morram says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:24 pm

    If gays are more dangerous than Al Qaeda we better not teach them to fly.

    she’s be quiet if she had a sausage in her mouth

    #22
    “Saw the heads off Jew reporters”
    that is so cool, maybe make a T-shirt with that..

    Reply
  13. OhForTheLoveOf says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:30 pm

    #27 – The reason this is done is that when you label someone a “hater” or a religious zealot, you are saying that their concerns or what they think are invalid and is defacto censorship.

    What a big honkin’ load of shit.

    So its defacto censorship when I criticize her point of view? Mind you, I am not stopping her from talking, and in fact encourage others to listen to her babbling BS for themselves… But I am a censor in the scenario?

    You can boil your point of view down to its essential core. You think that I should shut the fuck up. Fine, but how is that not censorship? (it isn’t, unless you follow your logic) In fact, how the sky not orange in your world.

    This woman IS a religious zealot, a bigot, and a hatemonger. I’m not censoring her. I’m saying what I goddamn well believe and have a perfect right to say.

    Reply
  14. HMeyers says:
    3/10/2008 at 1:42 pm

    @33

    No my friend, you got me all wrong.

    If the purpose of this is to throw stones at some old-fashioned grandma, yeah sure.

    I’m saying ignore the potential bigotry of the person and look at the argument.

    I mean, if you want to demonize people, for instance, you can demonize Osama and say that the corporations of the USA aren’t doing bad things to Muslim culture.

    I think demonizing people is always wrong.

    This is why I’m a huge Obama fan, for instance. I marvel at how he manages to keep his arguments clean and on the subject and not get distracted into side shows.

    I strongly reject, for instance, creationism but I don’t demonize the people who believe it.

    Most of the posts here are childish “OMG! Religious Republikan freak zealot old lady, ZOMG!!!” And that’s fine for throwing stones.

    This country needs a new tone. I don’t find shit-flinging monkeys on the left and shit-flinging monkeys on the right to be particularly productive.

    That’s my point.

    /If using the words shit-flinging monkeys is taboo for this board, I apologize.

    Reply
  15. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:
    3/10/2008 at 2:23 pm

    Sally Kern says of homosexuality, “According to God’s word, that is not the right kind of lifestyle.”

    Apparently Abraham’s lifestyle was much more wholesome in the eyes of the god that Sally Kern worships. Abraham merely had an incestuous marriage to his half-sister Sarah, and he didn’t feel terribly bound by marriage vows to remain faithful to her, so he had sex with Sarah’s servant and sired his firstborn son Ishmael. Abraham was also the guy whom Sally’s god later described as having “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.” Hmmmmm, I guess god wasn’t a real stickler for fidelity in marriage at that time. I wonder what changed his mind.

    In a discussion of morality, the Bible is a very shaky foundation for the argument against anything, but nothing will convince religious conservatives that Biblical directives aren’t a valid basis for the best laws. Arguing extraneous issues with such people is fruitless as long as they have that unshakable core belief.

    And speaking of extraneous issues, I find it ironic that Kern mentions the high suicide rate among gays on her list of negatives, yet she speaks out so strongly against the sort of social acceptance that would greatly reduce those rates. And later her talk gets even sillier, especially where she seems alarmed that gay people have even run for office and WON ELECTIONS! She describes this part of the gay agenda as “infiltrating” city councils. It’s fairly similar to what Christians have been doing with school boards for years now, but I bet they don’t call it “infiltrating.”

    Maybe Sally is lucky, and God is a Baptist.

    Reply
  16. HMeyers says:
    3/10/2008 at 2:25 pm

    @29 Dallas again …

    I believe you have much to learn from Gary the Infidel and his intelligent critique of what this old lady said.

    Gary the Infidel > Dallas.

    Reply
  17. JimR says:
    3/10/2008 at 2:37 pm

    Re: #27, HMeyers, “It sounds like she has legitimate concerns about some of the consequences of gay culture.”

    Okay, let’s critique the argument then. To which “consequences” of gay culture are you referring, and that you think are legitimate? Please be specific as I expect you to back up your argument with facts.

    Reply
  18. HMeyers says:
    3/10/2008 at 2:55 pm

    #37 “It sounds like she has legitimate concerns about some of the consequences of gay culture.”

    First, there isn’t a single gay culture and had their been an edit function, I would have cleaned up the wording a little more. I accidentally painted with broad brush, but not by intent.

    With that being said …

    There are some gay advocates that believe that sex with children is “ok” and argue that the Greeks did this (they probably did). I know I have issues with that.

    And I believe that this is large part of the anti-Boy Scouts sentiment. And probably a good chunk of the anti-religious sentiment in this country (although as a hardcore atheist, there are plenty of other reasons to not be particularly fond of the religious activists).

    The attitude that many in the gay community have towards having a large number of sex partners does foster the spread of disease.

    And there have been legitimate problems a lot of cities have had with bathhouses and activity in public parks and beaches. This is just rude.

    What people do in their own privacy is their business, and I do support civil unions and the lion’s share of legal rights.

    But I don’t the part of the gay community that wants to “get to the kids early” or those in the gay community that believe it is ok to have sex in public parks (we have this problem in my city).

    I think those that paint issues like this as black and white aren’t being intellectually honest about some of the problems.

    Reply
  19. Dallas says:
    3/10/2008 at 2:55 pm

    #36. Yes, I am learning all the time about people and culture.

    I find public reaction to what our elected official say and do is often as mind boggling as the act itself !

    It’s like the story of the teenage boy who killed his girlfriend’s parents for not letting them date. The fact that the girlfriend helped is mind boggling to me – not what the boy did.

    Reply
  20. Mister Catshit says:
    3/10/2008 at 3:08 pm

    #18, stormcoder,

    NeoCons == NeoLibs but coming from opposite ends of the number line.

    So, what the eff is a “NeoLib”?

    Give me a Constitutional government like Kucinick (Sp?) and Ron Paul are working for.

    You must really be behind them if you don’t even know how to spell Dennis Kusinich’s name. I’ll bet you don’t even know what their platforms are. I’ll give you a hint, Paul and Kusinich aren’t very close politically.

    Reply

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24490 access attempts in the last 7 days.